I'm convinced that Dennis doesn't understand my post, particularly the limited scope of its calculation, BUT I don't see any evidence that a misunderstanding of conservation of energy per se is at issue on either of our parts. I think it's probably in the communications.
My problem posits a container in which an exothermic process takes place, into which some activation energy for this process is supplied, and out of which energy leaves, and whose internal energy remains fixed under the assumption of steady-state operation and thermal equilibrium. (Obviously, I intended to represent a fusion reactor, but this could be many other things--a subcritical fission reactor, a lump of coal smoldering in air, etc.) Say one desires to supply the activation energy by converting--using some unspecified but lossy method--energy extracted from the container, so as to perpetuate the process at a steady state. Given a particular relation between the activation energy and the process energy released, (A) can the process sustain itself and (B) what condition is imposed on the efficiency of the conversion method in order to do this?
So there it is again, shorter, sweeter, and very general. Again worth noting (apparently): there is no intent to calculate the efficiency of particular conversion methods, the intent is only to calculate what the efficiency needs to be, at a minimum, to satisfy self-sustenance. The whole thing is quite trivial.
-Carl
Theoredical design, could it work?
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work
Carl,
Your entire post is a straw man – not a single real calculation relative to thermodynamics.
Ok, you use a term some physicist call 'nuclear enthalpy' (your link doesn’t work) but that is not enthalpy defined for real thermodynamic calculations. No - pulling stuff from books and not pointing out that you are using special terms that are not defined as any normal usage is not proper unless you first define the term.
Be that as it may, the term is ad hoc – just created arbitrarily to describe a net energy yield so as not to have to say the energy of the nuclear reaction (big deal.) This is not enthalpy (the term you used in your post) and no one I check defines that as a real term for enthalpy – sloppy word usage is common in science and stealing words to modify them for convince is not unusual but that does not define enthalpy nor allow anyone to so use the term without stating that they are using a nonstandard term.
Still, let us assume it has relevancy – so what are you calculating? Not any thermodynamic value any one knows. That the energy released times the number of particles that release this energy divided by two ((you cannot get the mass of the products that way but even the number isn’t exact since some single protons, and even some (rare) tritium is also formed but that is decimal places so I'll let that pass) is just a number that means nothing except an obvious statement that if I generate this much energy per reaction and have this many products I get this amount of final energy – wow. Big deal – why bother with that calculation and put big words with it?
(By the way, if you would like to do real physics, I'd be willing to give you the real enthalpy equations and explain them relative to heat engines for real eff. calculations for power plants.)
Your Zmin calculation is also just numbers put together for no real reason I can can account for - not sure why you did that calculation.
You added words about power plants and did most certainly imply that all this stuff about not having fusion for power plants is a red hearing because of Why? I’m sorry but I still don’t know what you were getting at with your last conclusion.
If you want to continue with the issue of your calculation, please explain why you did it? The value you determine in arbitary form is a pointless excerise in multiplying some physical values to get a useless number.
Your entire post is a straw man – not a single real calculation relative to thermodynamics.
Ok, you use a term some physicist call 'nuclear enthalpy' (your link doesn’t work) but that is not enthalpy defined for real thermodynamic calculations. No - pulling stuff from books and not pointing out that you are using special terms that are not defined as any normal usage is not proper unless you first define the term.
Be that as it may, the term is ad hoc – just created arbitrarily to describe a net energy yield so as not to have to say the energy of the nuclear reaction (big deal.) This is not enthalpy (the term you used in your post) and no one I check defines that as a real term for enthalpy – sloppy word usage is common in science and stealing words to modify them for convince is not unusual but that does not define enthalpy nor allow anyone to so use the term without stating that they are using a nonstandard term.
Still, let us assume it has relevancy – so what are you calculating? Not any thermodynamic value any one knows. That the energy released times the number of particles that release this energy divided by two ((you cannot get the mass of the products that way but even the number isn’t exact since some single protons, and even some (rare) tritium is also formed but that is decimal places so I'll let that pass) is just a number that means nothing except an obvious statement that if I generate this much energy per reaction and have this many products I get this amount of final energy – wow. Big deal – why bother with that calculation and put big words with it?
(By the way, if you would like to do real physics, I'd be willing to give you the real enthalpy equations and explain them relative to heat engines for real eff. calculations for power plants.)
Your Zmin calculation is also just numbers put together for no real reason I can can account for - not sure why you did that calculation.
You added words about power plants and did most certainly imply that all this stuff about not having fusion for power plants is a red hearing because of Why? I’m sorry but I still don’t know what you were getting at with your last conclusion.
If you want to continue with the issue of your calculation, please explain why you did it? The value you determine in arbitary form is a pointless excerise in multiplying some physical values to get a useless number.
-
chrisforpower
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:17 pm
- Real name:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Tell me if I am understanding you correctly: You are saying that although the hydrogen atoms may become charged they will repel each other the same amount as they would repel the walls and hence nothing would happen.
As to the creation of atoms in the design, they would be created the same way a fusor creates them: by corona discharge
As to the creation of atoms in the design, they would be created the same way a fusor creates them: by corona discharge
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15037
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Lyn wrote in his discussion related to a fusion based power plant above:
"Even in the best fusors to date this would equal just over 40% of the power put in in the first place."
Maybe I have read something wrong here. Are you saying that the best performance to date with a fusor is 40% efficiency, energy in to energy out?
If so, I hope you don't really believe that. The best d-d fusors are actually on the order of .000000001% efficient, Requiring between 1 to 10 billion times more energy placed in them in than output in all the reactants. Not all that hopeful save for the few newbs out to save the world and make it green with fusors.
Thus, any conversion efficiency and other thermodynamic considerations concerning the fusor are moot, erudite points.
The d-d reaction is and forever will be extothermic. Getting your hands on that energy in a way that will cost little or nothing related to its production, while pushing watts out of a wall outlet in homes all over the land remains the real issue. This fusion quest has no foreseeable solution or even solid plan on how to proceed that doesn't stretch the credulity of most any informed observer having feet planted in the real world. Yet, the fusion quest remains a serious dream for many, from the loftiest folks at ITER to the newbs here at fusorville.
Richard Hull
"Even in the best fusors to date this would equal just over 40% of the power put in in the first place."
Maybe I have read something wrong here. Are you saying that the best performance to date with a fusor is 40% efficiency, energy in to energy out?
If so, I hope you don't really believe that. The best d-d fusors are actually on the order of .000000001% efficient, Requiring between 1 to 10 billion times more energy placed in them in than output in all the reactants. Not all that hopeful save for the few newbs out to save the world and make it green with fusors.
Thus, any conversion efficiency and other thermodynamic considerations concerning the fusor are moot, erudite points.
The d-d reaction is and forever will be extothermic. Getting your hands on that energy in a way that will cost little or nothing related to its production, while pushing watts out of a wall outlet in homes all over the land remains the real issue. This fusion quest has no foreseeable solution or even solid plan on how to proceed that doesn't stretch the credulity of most any informed observer having feet planted in the real world. Yet, the fusion quest remains a serious dream for many, from the loftiest folks at ITER to the newbs here at fusorville.
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
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
-
Linda Haile
- Posts: 230
- Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:28 pm
- Real name:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Richard, I obviously didn't make the point very well.
What I meant was that the best you could hope for would be 40% of energy input plus 40% of energy released by fusion (ie 40% of 0.000000001%) which adds up to just over 40%.
This was based on the assumption that you could reasonably expect to get 40% of the total energy in the system out as usable power. The whole argument is hypothetical, BTW.
I hope this clarifies things.
What I meant was that the best you could hope for would be 40% of energy input plus 40% of energy released by fusion (ie 40% of 0.000000001%) which adds up to just over 40%.
This was based on the assumption that you could reasonably expect to get 40% of the total energy in the system out as usable power. The whole argument is hypothetical, BTW.
I hope this clarifies things.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15037
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Yes, It clears up that you made a massive assumption in being hypothetical. Thanks for the clarification.
Richard Hull
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
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: Theoredical design, could it work?
>You are saying that although the hydrogen atoms may become
>charged they will repel each other the same amount as they would
>repel the walls and hence nothing would happen.
The normal fusor has a ground outer shell and a inner grid at say -10KV. This is a potential difference hence an ion will experience a force inward and electron a force outward.
So lets switch it around, with a ground outer shell and a +10Kv inner grid shaped like a series of cones. This is your configuration as I understand it, you dont have an inner grid at the collision point. If you did it would be a standard fusor and suffer all the usual inner grid collision losses. However, within the now cone array shaped inner grid, either + or - the space is at equipotential. This the same as guys flying helicopters and connecting to high voltage potential lines with straps so they are at the same potential as the high voltage line but dont suddenly ionise.
The reason the ions experience no force is that the they are equally repelled and attracted by charges on the walls by symmetry. This is a faraday cage I think they call it. Hence if you did get ions in there- say with an electron gun - they would experience no force and just drift until they exited the inner grid or hit the inner grid wall.
>As to the creation of atoms in the design, they would be created
> the same way a fusor creates them: by corona discharge
Not within the inner grid. If you do have ground outer shell and a +charged inner grid any ions created in gas outside of the inner grid would head to the outer ground shell and be lost to direct collision with the outer wall in any case.
-- James
>charged they will repel each other the same amount as they would
>repel the walls and hence nothing would happen.
The normal fusor has a ground outer shell and a inner grid at say -10KV. This is a potential difference hence an ion will experience a force inward and electron a force outward.
So lets switch it around, with a ground outer shell and a +10Kv inner grid shaped like a series of cones. This is your configuration as I understand it, you dont have an inner grid at the collision point. If you did it would be a standard fusor and suffer all the usual inner grid collision losses. However, within the now cone array shaped inner grid, either + or - the space is at equipotential. This the same as guys flying helicopters and connecting to high voltage potential lines with straps so they are at the same potential as the high voltage line but dont suddenly ionise.
The reason the ions experience no force is that the they are equally repelled and attracted by charges on the walls by symmetry. This is a faraday cage I think they call it. Hence if you did get ions in there- say with an electron gun - they would experience no force and just drift until they exited the inner grid or hit the inner grid wall.
>As to the creation of atoms in the design, they would be created
> the same way a fusor creates them: by corona discharge
Not within the inner grid. If you do have ground outer shell and a +charged inner grid any ions created in gas outside of the inner grid would head to the outer ground shell and be lost to direct collision with the outer wall in any case.
-- James
-
Carl Willis
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 7:33 pm
- Real name: Carl Willis
- Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
- Contact:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work
>By the way, if you would like to do real physics, I'd be willing to give you the real enthalpy equations
Dennis, it's unfortunate that my post has elicited this kind of aspersion and chest-thumpery. But I suppose this is par-for-the-course, another example of the dead-end nature of "armchair" discussions. (By the way, I can't except myself from my general critique of "theory" contributions on this board, and by participating in this thread I disappointingly failed to uphold the principle of restraint that I preach so often.)
Your offering of "real enthalpy equations" strikes me as suspect--I have a bookcase full of reliable texts, my graduate coursework is still in recent memory, I don't know your background well enough to favor your word over the resources at my disposal, and besides, it seems the crux of the ongoing issue has more to do with communication than with physics--HOWEVER I would be interested if you were to actually solve the problem I framed, using whatever approach you justify, and arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion. I added a simplified description of the problem:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7254#p51897
Any further correspondence I desire to have with you on the topic of this post, I'll relegate to email, and if you'd do the same I would appreciate it.
-Carl
Dennis, it's unfortunate that my post has elicited this kind of aspersion and chest-thumpery. But I suppose this is par-for-the-course, another example of the dead-end nature of "armchair" discussions. (By the way, I can't except myself from my general critique of "theory" contributions on this board, and by participating in this thread I disappointingly failed to uphold the principle of restraint that I preach so often.)
Your offering of "real enthalpy equations" strikes me as suspect--I have a bookcase full of reliable texts, my graduate coursework is still in recent memory, I don't know your background well enough to favor your word over the resources at my disposal, and besides, it seems the crux of the ongoing issue has more to do with communication than with physics--HOWEVER I would be interested if you were to actually solve the problem I framed, using whatever approach you justify, and arrive at a fundamentally different conclusion. I added a simplified description of the problem:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7254#p51897
Any further correspondence I desire to have with you on the topic of this post, I'll relegate to email, and if you'd do the same I would appreciate it.
-Carl
-
Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Chris O.
Sorry to see that your post resulted in a long thread about nothing...
You had an idea and you wanted a simple opinion..., my opinion on your idea is that you need to do some more thought experiments in your mind, and test the idea.
You are missing a few points..., to accelerate a charged particle you need an electrical field gradient, that implies that you need two surfaces of different charge. Ideally, there is no such thing as a positive charge, or a negative charge, these are just fictions from high school, sorry again, that you had to learn this, but now you shall have to forget it.
One can only refer to something being positive or negative with respect to something else, that something else is what we usually refer to as ground, but as you will soon realize, ground can be anywhere you want it to be, just as you can't know that you are on the tenth floor of a building unless you look out the window, if you get my drift.
In your invention, you have to establish how the gradient falls, and when you do that, you will also find the lines along which your charged particles will fall.
For all intents and purposes, your positively charged star formation is a hollow sphere, and as we have discovered a charged sphere has a zero gradient internally, ergo, your particles will not accelerate to the center as you imagine.
Do some more thinking, and use your imagination to find new and better solutions, each time you will get a bit closer to the holy grail of physics, a fusion reactor that burns by itself
Anyone can do it, but you will need to think outside the square, or star in your case ..
Steven
Sorry to see that your post resulted in a long thread about nothing...
You had an idea and you wanted a simple opinion..., my opinion on your idea is that you need to do some more thought experiments in your mind, and test the idea.
You are missing a few points..., to accelerate a charged particle you need an electrical field gradient, that implies that you need two surfaces of different charge. Ideally, there is no such thing as a positive charge, or a negative charge, these are just fictions from high school, sorry again, that you had to learn this, but now you shall have to forget it.
One can only refer to something being positive or negative with respect to something else, that something else is what we usually refer to as ground, but as you will soon realize, ground can be anywhere you want it to be, just as you can't know that you are on the tenth floor of a building unless you look out the window, if you get my drift.
In your invention, you have to establish how the gradient falls, and when you do that, you will also find the lines along which your charged particles will fall.
For all intents and purposes, your positively charged star formation is a hollow sphere, and as we have discovered a charged sphere has a zero gradient internally, ergo, your particles will not accelerate to the center as you imagine.
Do some more thinking, and use your imagination to find new and better solutions, each time you will get a bit closer to the holy grail of physics, a fusion reactor that burns by itself
Anyone can do it, but you will need to think outside the square, or star in your case ..
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
-
chrisforpower
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:17 pm
- Real name:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
I can see now that I don't know nearly enough about the subject of fusion, and I would like to learn more so that the quality of my ideas can improve. Does anyone have any informative posts, sites, etc. that they can direct me to? I would appreciate any way to get additional information. Also thank you Steven for your post, it clarified many things for me. My idea would indeed fail to work. All well, at least the one thing that I have no problem with is thinking outside the box. My problem is finding out which ideas are possible.
Chris
Chris
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Here is a good place to start
https://fusor.net/newbie/files/Ligon-QED-IE.pdf
And
https://fusor.net/files/EMC2_FusionToPost.pdf
Both excellent primers.
Steve
Kudos to Tom.
https://fusor.net/newbie/files/Ligon-QED-IE.pdf
And
https://fusor.net/files/EMC2_FusionToPost.pdf
Both excellent primers.
Steve
Kudos to Tom.
Re: Theoredical design, could it work
Carl,
Sure can do that but my selecting the 'name' in this forum heading always gives me an error so e-mail, from my end is a problem.
As for the word enthalpy that you used (and it was central to your calculation) - it has only one scientific meaning and that is the thermodynamic constant pressure heat - your post confused it with the very specific and totally unrelated term 'nuclear enthalpy'; not my mistake since I followed standard usage that all people do in scientific exchanges and use of terminology but that error made me believe you were doing a real thermodynamic calculation (also, your final ‘efficiency calculation – which, by the way, MUST be based on real thermodynamic principles or it has no absolute meaning in engineering, chemistry or physics - ie any such calculation must deal with the total system rather than a tiny special piece of the total system; otherwise, the end number will have a value that is of no practical value since it will not yield the State value and that is the one that determines if a process is economical or not - hence, real heat engine eff. calculations must use State functions - no way around that one!)
If you had (and yes, I now realize from your previous post, hadn't) been using the correct term, then all my points about the errors in your calculation would be valid and correct. i point this out because these exchanges resulted in, I would assume, a number of readers being very confused. As such, I owe them an explaination for my posts.
I failed to catch your error and you didn't realize it until late in our exchanges. In that respect, we where talking past one another and I was confused, to say the least. I still feel that there could be value in your method but not clear on its direction.
In that respect, I am still not clear on why you posted your calculation. Your statement on power plants is a mystery of meaning for me and I would very much like to understand it and your general point that you were making to Chris since (and here I may be mis-understanding your meaning but not Chris’s) he proved that fusors will never give net energy compared to input unless some really major breakthrough is achieved.
I would be happy to give you the correct method of calculating the thermodynamic energy balance of a fusor but the real enthalpy equation for a fusor is the $$$ question(yet that would be a major advancement for people here and worth the effort - just may be impossible.) Hhopefully, your e-mail function works unlike mine!
Aside - we all make mistakes and get sloppy in usage so, no real issue there except for the lost time. I have read a number of your posts and you have valuable information to share; as such, I was rather interested in your calculation and wanted to understand it (OK, I really wanted to understand your enthalpy term because that is where all the physics is and since it didn't follow, I was frustrated that I couldn't figure it out and confused by your responses so I nick-pick it to death. Thanks for providing the correction. Still would like to know what your main point was besides the obvious energy calculation for a single nuclear event.)
We killed a lot of electrons over this issue yet I am intriged by the idea of an enthalpy term (classical) and wonder if it is possible - so, if you are game, we could tackle the problem.
Best regards,
Dennis
Sure can do that but my selecting the 'name' in this forum heading always gives me an error so e-mail, from my end is a problem.
As for the word enthalpy that you used (and it was central to your calculation) - it has only one scientific meaning and that is the thermodynamic constant pressure heat - your post confused it with the very specific and totally unrelated term 'nuclear enthalpy'; not my mistake since I followed standard usage that all people do in scientific exchanges and use of terminology but that error made me believe you were doing a real thermodynamic calculation (also, your final ‘efficiency calculation – which, by the way, MUST be based on real thermodynamic principles or it has no absolute meaning in engineering, chemistry or physics - ie any such calculation must deal with the total system rather than a tiny special piece of the total system; otherwise, the end number will have a value that is of no practical value since it will not yield the State value and that is the one that determines if a process is economical or not - hence, real heat engine eff. calculations must use State functions - no way around that one!)
If you had (and yes, I now realize from your previous post, hadn't) been using the correct term, then all my points about the errors in your calculation would be valid and correct. i point this out because these exchanges resulted in, I would assume, a number of readers being very confused. As such, I owe them an explaination for my posts.
I failed to catch your error and you didn't realize it until late in our exchanges. In that respect, we where talking past one another and I was confused, to say the least. I still feel that there could be value in your method but not clear on its direction.
In that respect, I am still not clear on why you posted your calculation. Your statement on power plants is a mystery of meaning for me and I would very much like to understand it and your general point that you were making to Chris since (and here I may be mis-understanding your meaning but not Chris’s) he proved that fusors will never give net energy compared to input unless some really major breakthrough is achieved.
I would be happy to give you the correct method of calculating the thermodynamic energy balance of a fusor but the real enthalpy equation for a fusor is the $$$ question(yet that would be a major advancement for people here and worth the effort - just may be impossible.) Hhopefully, your e-mail function works unlike mine!
Aside - we all make mistakes and get sloppy in usage so, no real issue there except for the lost time. I have read a number of your posts and you have valuable information to share; as such, I was rather interested in your calculation and wanted to understand it (OK, I really wanted to understand your enthalpy term because that is where all the physics is and since it didn't follow, I was frustrated that I couldn't figure it out and confused by your responses so I nick-pick it to death. Thanks for providing the correction. Still would like to know what your main point was besides the obvious energy calculation for a single nuclear event.)
We killed a lot of electrons over this issue yet I am intriged by the idea of an enthalpy term (classical) and wonder if it is possible - so, if you are game, we could tackle the problem.
Best regards,
Dennis
-
chrisforpower
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:17 pm
- Real name:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Looks like I was right in my identification of the inner grid as the primary area that energy was lost at. Any other recommended articles
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
There are some interesting documents I posted in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2936#p12446
by other researchers well worth a read.
Best of luck.
Steve.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2936#p12446
by other researchers well worth a read.
Best of luck.
Steve.
-
chrisforpower
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 2:17 pm
- Real name:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Am I correct in my understanding that plasma, (or electrons and ions) when exposed to a magnet, will follow the magnetic field lines.
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Essentially yes.
It depends on the field strength and ion/electron energy.
A moving charge creates a magnetic field which interacts with the field within which it is
immersed. This is how motors work. The moving charge is the electrons in the wire creating a field which pushes against the permanent magnets (in basic terms).
Here is some magnetic (and electrostatic) methods of confinement.
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Magn ... nement.pdf
It depends on the field strength and ion/electron energy.
A moving charge creates a magnetic field which interacts with the field within which it is
immersed. This is how motors work. The moving charge is the electrons in the wire creating a field which pushes against the permanent magnets (in basic terms).
Here is some magnetic (and electrostatic) methods of confinement.
http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Magn ... nement.pdf
-
David Geer
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:51 am
- Real name:
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Steven Hosemans wrote:
> Essentially yes.
> It depends on the field strength and ion/electron energy.
> A moving charge creates a magnetic field which interacts with the field within which it is
> immersed. This is how motors work. The moving charge is the electrons in the wire creating a field which pushes against the permanent magnets (in basic terms).
>
> Here is some magnetic (and electrostatic) methods of confinement.
>
> http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Magn ... nement.pdf
Firstly, great starting and learning material for everyone in line for fusion-based experiments.
Secondly, what I've come to see in exceedingly numerous experiments is the imperfections in the inner grid and the field containment failures. Sure there have been some really cool looking results from each person's grid arrays but the simple, inescapable fact remains that particle streams leaving the core area is a sign of insufficient magnetic containment and loss of fusion cloud density. The inner grids have near sufficient rings on the Z-rotation of the Y-axis. The failing point is that in the Z-rotation of the X-axis, you have only 2 real rings... vertical and horizontal. 3 vertical based rings and 1 horizontal is nowhere sufficient. Follow through with misaligned rings giving an unstable field structure with large gaps in random field cusps.
I'll give findings once I finish with a magnetic/electromagnetic icosahedral or variant magrid lattice (Based off the Polywell WB series). Looking at maybe layering a second WB lattice around a smaller at an offset angle to further compress the field and pinch the cusp points tighter. Still debating on making 2-4 grids and if any, will be propelled gyroscopics to promote field containment and whether there will be feedback capacitors connected to the inner grid and a flexible solar panel system layering the vacuum shell. The feedback capacitors will in essence pickup the converted photovoltaic energy and occasional plasma discharge due to field discrepencies. Feedback going to a multimeter for initial tests and if sufficient back inwards to the debatable electromagnet system to bolster containment strength.
Post is getting long so I'll stop for now. Feel free to critique any way you like.
> Essentially yes.
> It depends on the field strength and ion/electron energy.
> A moving charge creates a magnetic field which interacts with the field within which it is
> immersed. This is how motors work. The moving charge is the electrons in the wire creating a field which pushes against the permanent magnets (in basic terms).
>
> Here is some magnetic (and electrostatic) methods of confinement.
>
> http://www.askmar.com/Fusion_files/Magn ... nement.pdf
Firstly, great starting and learning material for everyone in line for fusion-based experiments.
Secondly, what I've come to see in exceedingly numerous experiments is the imperfections in the inner grid and the field containment failures. Sure there have been some really cool looking results from each person's grid arrays but the simple, inescapable fact remains that particle streams leaving the core area is a sign of insufficient magnetic containment and loss of fusion cloud density. The inner grids have near sufficient rings on the Z-rotation of the Y-axis. The failing point is that in the Z-rotation of the X-axis, you have only 2 real rings... vertical and horizontal. 3 vertical based rings and 1 horizontal is nowhere sufficient. Follow through with misaligned rings giving an unstable field structure with large gaps in random field cusps.
I'll give findings once I finish with a magnetic/electromagnetic icosahedral or variant magrid lattice (Based off the Polywell WB series). Looking at maybe layering a second WB lattice around a smaller at an offset angle to further compress the field and pinch the cusp points tighter. Still debating on making 2-4 grids and if any, will be propelled gyroscopics to promote field containment and whether there will be feedback capacitors connected to the inner grid and a flexible solar panel system layering the vacuum shell. The feedback capacitors will in essence pickup the converted photovoltaic energy and occasional plasma discharge due to field discrepencies. Feedback going to a multimeter for initial tests and if sufficient back inwards to the debatable electromagnet system to bolster containment strength.
Post is getting long so I'll stop for now. Feel free to critique any way you like.
- David Geer
-
Steven Sesselmann
- Posts: 2128
- Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 9:50 pm
- Real name: Steven Sesselmann
- Location: Sydney - Australia
- Contact:
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
David,
This appears to be your first post, tagged at the bottom of a very old thread, and then cut short by yourself.
You seem to have some interest in fusion......great!, so if you don't mind, could you please introduce yourself in the introductions forum first, and then, when you have an idea you want to discuss, please post it in the appropriate forum, and describe it fully, so that a sensible discussion can unfold.
Steven
This appears to be your first post, tagged at the bottom of a very old thread, and then cut short by yourself.
You seem to have some interest in fusion......great!, so if you don't mind, could you please introduce yourself in the introductions forum first, and then, when you have an idea you want to discuss, please post it in the appropriate forum, and describe it fully, so that a sensible discussion can unfold.
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
-
David Geer
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:51 am
- Real name:
- Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Re: Theoredical design, could it work?
Steven,
Sorry about that but this was actually my second post. I'll make sure to not mix my theory ideas in with commentary posts.
Sorry about that but this was actually my second post. I'll make sure to not mix my theory ideas in with commentary posts.
- David Geer