Fusor Forums

The centrifugal/centripetal forces create a hollow core space in which the plasma target is projected. But so far, based on all the tests, no true net gain has been observed and is thus, a failure. All are interesting and unique designs but nothing sufficient to be called an actual success, as of yet. In regards to NIF, that's not sonofusion but directed energy (laser) fusion.

From what I can tell, the only successful net gain reactor will be a hybridized system that best recreates the solar environment.

So the plasmoid target is a stationary FRC in a hollow space in the center of the sphere. The shock wave is initiated on the surface of the sphere and travels toward the center through the medium ( i.e. liquid Pb/Li ) but to compress the target the hollow core must collapse and have the liquid Pb/Li touch the plasmoid? I did not find the patent application online.

Not getting a patent will make it harder for them to raise capital. Seems like there are other patented fusion reactor designs where the patent was granted with a prototype but not such a high bar ( i.e. Tri-alpha's, Bussard ).

thx,
S

The US patent application numbers are;

20100163130
20060198487
20060198486
20060198483
20050129161

All have been rejected.

The latest one has not yet been abandoned and current status is 'non-final rejection'.

Patent offices are no longer granting applications that claim fusion energy, because it is fairly evident that no-one's been very successful at that, so the argument is that without a demonstration of enablement [viz. a working example] then it won't be granted.

It is worth noting perhaps, then, that the last 'Tri-Alpha' (Rostoker) application has also been rejected, along with a number of others.

For more info on General Fusion, there is a page of references to pdf papers on their website.

For the interest of folks here, I did notice *only* a month or two ago a Taleyarkhan patent application that has been peacefully working its way through the USPTO system for a couple of years, whilst its author has been struggling with the world outside. It was published as a publically accessible application on 7th October 2010.

So there is, now, currently a non-final rejection on the application.

...and guess what... Taleyarkhan has responded with some amendments and requesting some more time!!

This body is still a 'kicker' and not quite ready for the morgue of patent hopefuls just yet.

As far as I read, in the 'popular' scientific press, that Taleyarkhan was picked up on some poor neutron metrology and some other poorly explained phenomenology that showed he hadn't been entirely scientifically rigorous. Sounds to me just like many fusioneers here, who get ahead of themselves with a feeling that they have achieved some success and then a few 'issues' pop up....but, still, nonetheless turn out well-founded evidence of neutron emissions soon enough.

thanks for the information.

S

This exists, some people are experimenting with a bubble of deuterium-tritium gas in liquid lead inside a big ball with pistons everywhere on the outside creating the shockwave.

Don't know the name of the company.

FYI: I have just spotted that two new General Fusion patents have hit the patent journals.

It looks like the patent US20100163130 is getting no further attention, following a non-final rejection in October.

Two new patents have appeared, dated 3rd Feb '11;
US20110026657 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COMPRESSING PLASMA
US20110026658 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLASMA COMPRESSION WITH RECYCLING OF PROJECTILES

The piston approach is General Fusion as mentioned above.

I do not believe that the NIF laser approach is a direct laser heating of the fuel. Like a bomb it is an implosion device. The lasers heat up the Horbholium (sp?), which heats and compresses the contained fusion fuel pellet.

Gases are sometimes the starting fuel state, not necessarily plasma. A prime example is the Dense Plasma Focus approach.

And finally, I have not seen POPS mentioned in this thread. This involves manipulation of the plasma to create variations in densities, ie: waves- I'm not sure if they are propagating waves or standing waves, and understand little else about the physics, but on the surface at least, it seems this might fit the bill.

For that matter, it is still unknown (by the public) if POPS actually helps. The only information was an intermediate report from the late 1990's. Not a peep since (some of the published reports as late as ~2002 mentioned this data, but no followup reported.

Dan Tibbets

Dan... You went through a long discussion on POPS through 2010 with Chris Bradley, Richard Hester, Richard Hull and others just to name a few. Hasn't really been discussed in this forum but has in the others.


-David Geer

Chris Bradley wrote:
> For the interest of folks here, I did notice *only* a month or two ago a Taleyarkhan patent application that has been peacefully working its way through the USPTO system for a couple of years, whilst its author has been struggling with the world outside. It was published as a publically accessible application on 7th October 2010.

Just to update this, if anyone is interested, or comes here looking; the Taleyarkhan patent application, US20100254500, got a final rejection on 14th February 2011. The rejection note from the examiner explains that, in general terms, it was rejected on lack of enablement (he doesn't describe in sufficient depth how to perform his claims) but also that certain material has not been allowed because it is new material but was submitted after the original application date. In other words, Taleyarkhan has got more to add to his original patent application... so maybe he'll come back with a new application....?