Interesting Fusion Reactor

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".
Post Reply
MD1994
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 3:55 pm
Real name:
Contact:

Interesting Fusion Reactor

Post by MD1994 » Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:49 pm

Its diffrenent from everything that I've seen so far. So I was wandering if anyone here with more experience could to check out this website to checkout this device and its feasibility. Heres the link to the site:
http://www.crossfirefusion.com/nuclear- ... rview.html

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

Re: Interesting Fusion Reactor

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:24 am

Manuel,

Thanks for posting this, I think the patent is known to many here, it has been around since 2008. There seems to be no limit to the number of unsuccessful fusion devices that have had patent applications. It must be a good revenue stream for the patent office.

They usually fall into two or three different groups, and combinations of the three, inertial, electrostatic and magnetic, and I am guilty of having few apps myself.

I think we should realize by now, that what we have been working on a faulty belief.

The following sentence, is copied directly from the Crossfire fusion web site:

"As aforesaid, nuclear fusion takes place when light atomic nucleus with sufficient kinetic energy collides with each other to combine, overcoming electrostatic force repulsion, to form a heavier atomic nucleus releasing a tremendous amount of energy. "

This is the common belief, but what if it's wrong?

When nature wants to do something it does so voluntarily, by itself, and in an uncomplicated way.

So when I see a complex invention like the one above, I see an inventor who has been working extremely hard, literally getting himself into a knot, trying to fool nature.

The only thing limiting the stupid attempts is funding, and where funding can be provided we end up whith white elephants like ITER and worse NIF. Fortunately there will be some great parts on ebay, when the funding runs out

The most beutiful fusion reactor so far, is the Sun, and from my perspective the Hirsch fusor comes a close second, not for it's efficiency, but for it's beauty and simplicity.

Every time we add another ion gun or magnet or pulsed system, it gets uglier and uglier, and someone somewhere must be having a good laugh at us.

Water runs down hill because it wants to, so we can, and have been exploiting that fact for centuries.

Let's build a fusion reactor where nuclei are allowed to fuse because they want to.

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

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

Re: Interesting Fusion Reactor

Post by Steven Sesselmann » Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:18 am

James,

One again, I quote, this time from General Fusions web site...

"Nuclear fusion occurs when the nuclei, or central cores, of atoms come into contact with one another and bind together. This releases large amounts of energy........."

and

"energizing the nuclei so they can collide (this involves raising the temperature to 150 million °C)...."

Same story, but this time a more complicated device. So it appears, that the more complicated and expensive the device is, the harder it is to disprove, and the easier it is to get funding.

It's The emperors new clothes story, nobody wants to look stupid, so if it is really complicated then it will get the thumbs up.

Deuterons are quite tiny, they don't even know what device they happen to be in, they just do their little Deuteron thing and get on with their lives.

They move in the direction of lower potential wherever that might be, and if fusing provides a viable shortcut to where they want to go, then they take the easy option..., much like people really.

You have seen what happens in a park, when the paved path is laid in the wrong place...,people take the shortest path, even if that means marching over the grass.

Imagine a park, with newly laid grass, signs everywhere saying "By the order of the town clerk, NO STEPPING ON THE GRASS". A bunch of people on the paved paths, but all the paths stop short of the boundary.........

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

User avatar
Chris Bradley
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 11:05 am
Real name:

Re: Interesting Fusion Reactor

Post by Chris Bradley » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:24 am

Manuel,

Please use the search feature when posting, especially if you are new to the board and haven't had much time to familiarise with the content. A search for 'crossfire' would bring up a few posts, I am sure, then you can add to those with an updated question if needs be. This way, discussion topics stay in one place.

As Steven says, plenty of manic ideas have been punted out into the fusion world. What counts is trying them out, and this one is all talk and no action - as far as I know.

A list I created here some time ago was put [by someone else] onto Wiki. This is a list aiming to identify all the methods *attempted*. If I did the same for all *ideas* then where would the list stop? Elephants sitting on balloons of deuterium? So when someone added Crossfire to it, 'fraid I had to delete it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fu ... chnologies



There is a similar list, but it only lists the 'mainstream-ers' and misses off several of the more interesting technologies;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_experiments

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

Re: Interesting Fusion Reactor

Post by DaveC » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:02 pm

Without having read the remainder of the "Crossfire" patent.... which is actually irrelevant to my point.....patents are often filled with perfectly correct statements about how a process works... in theory. It seems the fusion description in the Crossfire patent fits this. It is a more or less correct statement...

Where the shell game comes into play, is substituting that correct statement for an implication that the proposed apparatus-scheme-device or whatever will actually accomplish this.

At first glance this seems to load up the workspace with all these bogus ideas, that don't work, yet are patented, sealing off a profitable route against the people who actually make something that does work.

But those that actually succeed in making the device work, have done something that makes the difference... that is the truly patentable part... and it will be protected once it is truly known and described.

Dave Cooper

Post Reply